On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > And likely will depend on given how
> > HTTP/2 push works. Part of the reason I'm raising this is because
> > folks are running into issues with the current model. If we change the
> > model but don't make sure that all browsers adopt it, developers will
> > still end up running into issues.
> Hmm... Can you describe more about what issues developers of Web sites
> are running into?
I would encourage us not to take this thread in that direction. h2 push
impls (ours and chrome's) currently scope push to be connection based
rather than writing directly into the cache - and you can see why
connection management would play a role with that little fact of life. But
that algorithm is really just a conservative holding pattern to figure out
the right scope of pushed info. And frankly push is huge amounts of
machinery and corner cases for rather marginal benefits, so I would much
rather fit it into whatever anonymous model we want, rather than working
the other way around.
sleevi has a thread open somewhere about his concerns about not just
sticking pushed data in the cache.. and I have some concerns about what to
do with dynamic data (all pushed data can be consumed once, even if
uncachable.. which makes a lot of sense but then if the http cache is your
backing store how to you make sure more than one copy ends up in the right
anyhow, that's probably not the right direction for this thread..